This may even have been the intention of the US DoJ by making sure Mandelson is highlighted the maximum amount of times. It certainly benefits the Trump administration to have the UK as weak as possible, especially when we are looking to renew bonds with Europe and are pivoting away from US hegemony.
also replace a left government with farage
"Left"
But yeah Farage would be much worse so you may be right.
jesus man, lay off the purity tests. Auth left is left. Center left is left.
I'm not saying Labour are the paris commune, I'm saying the motivation is to remove the leftwing party from power and replace them with nazis.
I'm fine forming a coalition against fascism with centrists but I just don't think you can be pro-police state and be on the left. That's a fundamentally incompatible position. It's not some pet issue, building a police state is the single most anti-left policy I can possibly imagine. Starmer is literally working to make left organizing impossible.
Again I'm not saying Farage wouldn't be worse, and maybe tactically it's right to support Starmer to oppose him. Or maybe not, we can have that discussion. But if so it's truly an act of desperation because Starmer is absolutely our enemy too.
I just don’t think you can be pro-police state and be on the left.
go explain that to basically all the big auth-left countries in the 20th century; China, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia and North Korea. (EDIT : missed the obvious, USSR)
They did famously right wing things like nationalising all industry, killing landlords and capitalists, and banning religion.
I do try to explain that to them and people never listen.
If your definition of leftism is "it's good when we brutally murder the ~~filthy foreigners~~ kulaks!" then you've completely lost the plot.
The left right axis isn't about "left good, right bad". If you look at the things I posted, and try to determine if those are actions that have political motivation on the right, left or center.
Most of those things are bad (nationalising all industry is a mixed bag, and open to long ass discussions many people have had in the past). However, they are aimed at reducing the income disparity or restricting captialist actions. They fit on the left, or at least, are not centrist, nor right wing. The way those actions were carried out are through authoritarian regimes with police state like apparatuses to enforce them.
In terms of the political compass, the USSR is not lib left; it was far too socially restrictive, thus, there is a mixture of authoritarianism and left wing economic policy.
These are historic facts and analyses that are corroborated. They aren't nice things, but it's how it is.
Leftism is for liberation. That's what it always was about. A lot of dishonest, self-interested people have tried to convince us it's about something else but that's because they're afraid of losing their political or economic status if we actually understood and united in our common interests.
Yes, the left is anti-capitalist but historically it's also always been anti-authoritarian--with the notable exception of the Bolsheviks and those who followed their example. Once you realize that despite their power and prominence, they fundamentally don't fit with other left movements, the left as a cohesive ideology makes a lot more sense.
The political compass is a useful way to navigate the contested narratives around left and right but ultimately it is an illusion. Auth-left is just a different flavor of right-wing movement where they prefer the state's boot to a capitalist's. It's not leftist anymore than it would be to fire all of the CEOs and rehire people of color to fill their roles.
Starmer is not as pro-state domination as those people but he's also not as anti-capitalist. So ultimately he's one more in a long line of leaders who uses leftist energy and organizing to get into power and then betrays their interests for his own ends.
OK. And out of the historical parties in power in the UK for the past hundred years, where does the Labour party lie?
I'm not the most well-versed in UK history but I do believe at one time the labor party was more of a left party. And they certainly do have more left members. I just don't accept that label for Starmer after the way he has governed.
I think they're referring to how Labour is right and Tories are left, unless I'm completely misreading it.
What??? No.
sure, Tories are left wing, that's why they have a self hating black woman with african parents, who grew up in africa talking about how much she hates woke diversity in charge.
Labour are obviously nazis, since they have a white male human rights lawyer in charge.
No, I mean left and right are literally reversed in British politics.
Progressives are right-wing and conservatives are left-wing specifically in Britain.
Progressives are right-wing and conservatives are left-wing specifically in Britain.
put down the crack pipe.
I suppose the people I've been talking to irl have mislead me then. I've been constantly corrected on it.
yeah, who are your friends, Tommy Robinson and Nigel Farage? Labour are left wing, and mostly/usually socially progressive. The problem with labour is that they support some of the same authoritarian things that the conservatives do, like dragnet surveillance. This is due to the sensibilities of the british population, and trying to win votes, which is why they are attempting to further regulate migration and continue with brexit/keeping the UK out of the EU.
My friends are very much progressive and prefer to vote for Labour or Green.
if they are progressive and vote labour or green, how are they saying the progressives are right wing and conservatives left wing?
Probably just a spread of misinformation in that particular circle. The idea was that the meanings were literally inverted.
It could have possibly come from an older time in politics, or maybe started out malicious and just lost its edge.
I tend to be quite trusting, and I tend to refer to political views more as progressive/conservative rather than left/right, so I never really questioned where the idea came from.
educate yourself by reading some unbiased sources.
I get most of my news from Lemmy, but I welcome suggestions.
start here, read the FACTUAL parts of the ideologies listed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Political_Compass#Political_model
check the sources to see if they are credible, but the text should "mainstreamise" your ideas on how to analyse political parties/movements at a basic level.
These purity tests are done by closeted right wingers too scared to say that they're right wing.
Also wrong. Unless you think designating peaceful protesters holding signs for Palestine terrorists is leftist praxis.
how about nationalising rail?
Having a few leftist policies isn't sufficient. Especially when the anti-leftist actions are far more impactful than a plan that to my knowledge will likely never happen.
Personally I think nationalization is overrated by leftists but it is a genuinely popular policy on the left so I'll grant you it's something.
Speaking of left-wing purity tests, when the next UK election comes, I wonder if anti-Reform voters will be able to unite around a single party to keep Reform out of power, or whether they'll be spread into factions between Labour/LibDems/Greens/SNP/Plaid and even the Tories.
If anti-Reform voters can't unite behind a single party then Farage will surely be the next prime minister.
I think its likely they will do what Lab/Lib did in the past few elections where they strategically stand down candidates in tory regions to unite the vote, thus stopping people from being able to split the vote.
I'm not sure it will do much good, the numbers are very close when it comes to CON + "reform" , compared to LIB + LAB. (~10mil v ~12 mil, favouring left).
plus all the usual shennanigans of rural places getting more votes, the voters being clumped in various regions, etc etc.
I already left, so I don't care much.
Let's get rid of him, sure. But can we please not swallow a spider to catch a spider?
https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2025/12/30/nigel-farage-41-mentions-in-the-epstein-files/
Totally agree. Why is no one challenging Farage when he says this is the biggest political scandal in a century (it’s not) by asking him to explain his name being mentioned in the files. The press need to step up and start asking the tough questions.
Seems the Reform treasurer is up to his neck aswell https://www.thecanary.co/skwawkbox/2026/02/03/epstein-files-names-reform-uk-treasurer/
If we can get this over and done with so we can move past this nightmare of the Blairites doing what they can to turn the public against the left.
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.